I disagree with you. It seems there are two simultaneous things happening, and you are unfairly dismissing both.
The attitude you're calling out is, as you rightly mention, harmful to a startup. Anybody who refers to themselves as the "CEO" in internal discussions early on has a problem. You're right -- everybody in a startup does as much of everything as they can.
However, as the commenter above pointed out, there is another important function being played while handing out titles early -- establishing a basic leadership structure -- and this is vital.
Being on top of the leadership structure doesn't mean you sit around and order people all day, or refuse to do work; both of those would be the hallmark of a horrible leader. The leader is someone who takes ultimate responsibility and who has the final call in all decisions (should it be necessary).
Early on, that might not really show up much. A good "leader" would be the person who makes sure the little things get done and on time, like prioritization meetings, or helping to hold people accountable if/when they are underperforming (both of which can be unpleasant). Early on, a good leader would recognize that it would be horrible to exercise any kind of overriding call as consensus is better in a very small group.
Over time, however, having a clearly defined leader from the beginning helps in the outwards presentation of the company (to investors or prospective employees) and, most importantly, prevents the company from failing to due a power struggle or a misunderstanding of the leadership chain when it comes time to formalize it. I've seen it happen to several companies -- it isn't pretty, and is entirely avoidable.
You need a leader for one thing only at this stage, which is to break deadlocks, but it usually better in such situations to find outside counsel. I usually have someone on board specifically as a tie-breaker in the case of deadlock. In one of the companies I'm involved in the shares situation is exactly balanced so when we're deadlocked we ask the bookkeeper. Everybody gets to state their case, he casts his vote, we move on.
Having a 'clearly defined leader' is as good as having a single founder and a bunch of employees, you will never get the kind of teamwork and commitment from your co-founders if one of you starts to behave like 'the boss' until it is absolutely necessary.
The places where you see power struggles are those places where decisions are not made on their merits. Attempts to force such decisions usually backfired, and as you say, it isn't pretty.
Once you start taking on employees, or investors that ask for a clear corporate structure, you're probably at the right time to start to solidify those roles, so we agree there.
But that initial phase can last for a long time, and naming your 'CEO' too early can cause real problems.
I suppose we can agree to disagree then. Naming a "leader" early on does not mean that leader has to exert any kind of authority early on -- as I think we both agree, decisions should be made by consensus early and often.
To say that establishing a basic understanding on who will be taking the leadership roles early is somehow detrimental to the startup? I couldn't disagree more. Most companies I've seen out here (and I've seen quite a few as part of YC) have clearly defined who the "CEO" will be later, and it hasn't hurt them one bit, as long as that person is actual worthy of the position (and doesn't act like an idiot early on).
Your example that "Having a 'clearly defined leader' is as good as having a single founder and a bunch of employees" almost proves my point. If your team's motivation relies on them all imagining that they are the "CEO", you're going to have problems down the road. A good founding team should all understand their eventual positions from the get-go, and have no problem with that.
I think you're confusing someone being named "CEO" and someone behaving like "the boss". They may sometimes happen together, but I would not say they are correlated.
The attitude you're calling out is, as you rightly mention, harmful to a startup. Anybody who refers to themselves as the "CEO" in internal discussions early on has a problem. You're right -- everybody in a startup does as much of everything as they can.
However, as the commenter above pointed out, there is another important function being played while handing out titles early -- establishing a basic leadership structure -- and this is vital.
Being on top of the leadership structure doesn't mean you sit around and order people all day, or refuse to do work; both of those would be the hallmark of a horrible leader. The leader is someone who takes ultimate responsibility and who has the final call in all decisions (should it be necessary).
Early on, that might not really show up much. A good "leader" would be the person who makes sure the little things get done and on time, like prioritization meetings, or helping to hold people accountable if/when they are underperforming (both of which can be unpleasant). Early on, a good leader would recognize that it would be horrible to exercise any kind of overriding call as consensus is better in a very small group.
Over time, however, having a clearly defined leader from the beginning helps in the outwards presentation of the company (to investors or prospective employees) and, most importantly, prevents the company from failing to due a power struggle or a misunderstanding of the leadership chain when it comes time to formalize it. I've seen it happen to several companies -- it isn't pretty, and is entirely avoidable.